Biblical Views: The Bible Divide

024

Not long ago, Bible scholar Michael Coogan was interviewed for the alumni magazine of Stonehill College about his new book God and Sex.¹ Coogan was characteristically articulate, striking a mild “just the facts” tone regarding the Bible’s historical background and what the Bible actually has to say about sex. Not surprisingly, the next issue carried a slew of letters from alums, quite a few expressing outrage that such a “godless” man could be teaching Religion in a Catholic college.

Accusations of godlessness and worse are a familiar hazard for professors of Biblical Studies (and for BAR), and these letters were pretty standard fare. Reading them, I was led to reflect on two issues in particular: first, the general ignorance, even among academics, that there is a difference between “Religious Studies” and “Theology”; and second, the responsibility that rigorously trained Biblical scholars have to educate the wider public about the difference, especially as the most religious nation in the world, the United States of America, is growing increasingly polarized.

Many people are unaware that Religious Studies and Theology are not synonymous. Generally, the difference can be understood as the difference between the university and the seminary; in other words, a difference of perspective—the view from the outside or from the inside. The study of Religion has historically allied itself with science and reason as an interdisciplinary field using the methodologies of History, Linguistics, Anthropology—including Archaeology—and other university disciplines. One of its basic “rules” is that the scholar investigates religions of the contemporary world or of the past (such as ancient Israel) as a neutral observer and reporter with no religious agenda (even if we know no one can be fully impartial). I tell my students to imagine scholars of Religion as Martians, newly landed on earth with no preconceived notions about religion. Scholars of Religion do not aim to tell people what to believe or how to live.

By contrast, a Theologian studies her own religion as a believer—as a Jew or a Christian, for example—allied with faith and authority. What she discovers about, say, the influence of ancient Mesopotamian law on the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:1–17; Deuteronomy 5:6–21), she will seek to reconcile with existing Christian or Jewish belief. What is problematic is that the border between the two disciplines can very easily overlap, especially in the subfield of Religious Studies that is Biblical Studies.

Let me try to use some BAR contributors to demonstrate this difference, although I expect that one or more of them might dispute what follows precisely because of the overlap I mentioned. New Testament expert Bart Ehrman is an avowed atheist, but this is no bar to his being a Biblical scholar in “Religious Studies.” Conversely, as long as they do not prescribe religious behavior, there is no regulation against “believing” Religious Studies scholars. Amy-Jill Levine is Jewish and a leading New Testament scholar. On the other hand, both Luke Timothy Johnson and John Dominic Crossan are highly respected Bible scholars and avowed Christians (although with differing Christian outlooks) who openly incorporate the results of their scholarly work into their Christian theology.

Of course, discoveries in Religious Studies, like discoveries in other “scientific” fields, can, and often do, present challenges to Theology. However, this doesn’t mean the two cannot coexist. I find illuminating the comment made by evangelical theologian Daniel B. Wallace, “I hold in limbo my own theological views about the [New Testament] as I work through it; it makes for an interesting time! In one respect I have an existential crisis every time I come to the text, and that’s fine because the core of my theology is not the Bible, it’s Christ.”²

In the increasingly polarized country in which we live, there’s not just the fierce “red state/blue state” divide. There’s also a lot of mutual suspicion, not to say scorn, between highly educated Americans and much of the population who view higher education, particularly in Biblical Studies, as an insidious force devoted to destroying their social and religious values. The disconnect has only been growing in the decade since Robert Putnam published Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community,³ in which he warned that Americans are restricting their social interactions to people who share their political and religious views and thereby miss out on the intellectual challenges and enlightening consequences of having to relate civilly 066 with “different” people. The Internet reinforces this isolation; it’s significant that the expression “to surf” the Internet suggests recreation and fun, so we tend to visit sites that make us feel good, not ones that challenge or disturb us.

Despite the divide, the Bible matters to a lot of people, even if polls suggest they are often ignorant of its contents. They want to know what’s in the Bible and how to read it mindfully. Although Wikipedia warns that no reliable figures exist, the Bible continues to be a bestseller. Amazon.com provides a dedicated Bible Store with hundreds of offerings, enough to serve the entire spectrum of readers. Religious-sponsored sites such as BibleGateway.com offer Bible translations in an amazing array of languages in addition to English.⁴

The challenge for Biblical scholars is to find ways to share their expertise with the larger public in a manner that respects and speaks to the anxieties that critical Biblical scholarship can beget in believers. BAR has always been one such venue. I’d like to see more opportunities for respectful conversation between the “academy” and the public. Some of my colleagues in the academy have expressed misgivings at what they fear is a loosening of the scholarly standard for papers presented at the annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature.^a The charge is that some papers are crossing the line into Theology. Perhaps a more optimistic view would be that SBL is now in a position to create opportunities for just the sort of positive and productive discourse that is needed between the academy and the greater public to bridge the Bible Divide.

Not long ago, Bible scholar Michael Coogan was interviewed for the alumni magazine of Stonehill College about his new book God and Sex.1 Coogan was characteristically articulate, striking a mild “just the facts” tone regarding the Bible’s historical background and what the Bible actually has to say about sex. Not surprisingly, the next issue carried a slew of letters from alums, quite a few expressing outrage that such a “godless” man could be teaching Religion in a Catholic college. Accusations of godlessness and worse are a familiar hazard for professors of Biblical Studies (and for BAR), and these letters […]